Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The Flood - theories

Posted on: August 2, 2010 - 10:01am

OhMan

Posts: 37

Joined: 2010-08-02

Offline

The Flood - theories

Hey guys I have been hearing that vertical plate tectonics and catstrophic plate tectonics are evidence for a global flood. I believe vertical plate tectonics is the idea that a comet crashed and broke a seal which allowed a lot of water to gush out... or something. And I think catastrophic plate tectonics is a theory that explains that all the water from the flood is still here today, just that the whole Earth was rearranged so that there is still land above it... or something.

I was wondering what the refutations are for these two theories? It would be much appreciated.

Also as a minor note, any refutations or comments about hydroplate theory and canopy (vapor) theory would also be much appreciated!

I have never heard of vertical plate tectonics or catastrophic plate tectonics so I went and looked them up. I found a couple of sites that discussed them - both christian sites and both of them saying it looked pretty flaky. No serious web sites even discussed the subject. Last I read on the subject, all of the flood stories could be linked to pretty massive but local/regional floods and there was no evidence for global flooding.

Sounds to me like someone just made it up. Pretty hard to refute smoke dreams some times. When even the christian sites say it looks flaky, I think that is pretty conclusive.

Answers in Genesis (my favorite site in case you did not notice the user name) used to have a page specifically listing “arguments we think creationists should not use” but I can't find it right now. It was a treasure trove of ideas so bad that even they thought they were bad.

One of my favorites is from an aussie by the name of “Barry Setterfield Scientist”. You can google him if you are interested in his astoundingly bad idea.

I once hacked his web site just to see what was there and I found his CV buried with no actual link to it. As far as I can tell, he may have changed his last name to “Scientist” to give more weight to his words. The reality is that he took first semester freshman geology before he matriculated into some type of divinity degree. That is as close to being an actual scientist as he gets.

I don't remember where I read this but it was a reply to the assertion that the Earth was once completely covered by a vast vapor canopy that was then was used by God to inundate the planet. At any rate some skeptic/scientist replied that if that unlikely scenario had actually occurred that the massive thermal energy released as a byproduct of that rainstorm-to-end-all-rainstorms would have simply cooked every living thing on the planet including Noah and his crappy Ark. Every one would have boiled to death. End of story.

Answers in Genesis (my favorite site in case you did not notice the user name) used to have a page specifically listing “arguments we think creationists should not use” but I can't find it right now. It was a treasure trove of ideas so bad that even they thought they were bad.

One of my favorites is from an aussie by the name of “Barry Setterfield Scientist”. You can google him if you are interested in his astoundingly bad idea.

I will do that. Sometimes I need a laugh.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

I once hacked his web site just to see what was there and I found his CV buried with no actual link to it. As far as I can tell, he may have changed his last name to “Scientist” to give more weight to his words. The reality is that he took first semester freshman geology before he matriculated into some type of divinity degree. That is as close to being an actual scientist as he gets.

Favorite - "But Mr. Wizard was a great scientist." from The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai - Across the Eighth Dimension.

another fave - "Ask Dr. Science - remember, he knows more than you do."

I don't remember where I read this but it was a reply to the assertion that the Earth was once completely covered by a vast vapor canopy that was then was used by God to inundate the planet. At any rate some skeptic/scientist replied that if that unlikely scenario had actually occurred that the massive thermal energy released as a byproduct of that rainstorm-to-end-all-rainstorms would have simply cooked every living thing on the planet including Noah and his crappy Ark. Every one would have boiled to death. End of story.

I was thinking of comments like - What about all the energy? - but I'm too lazy to run the calcs. That would be a hell of a lot of latent energy though and you think somebody would have noticed it was getting a little muggy out there.

were invented by people who had no knowledge that the hydrosphere, while part of it is dynamic, has been constant throughout geological time. Volcanism on the very early earth would have added to it slightly and photolysis into space since the atmosphere formed would have deducted from the overall water budget but these variations are not considered to have been significant. The most significant variations in water level on earth relate to melting ice sheets and to changing temperature of the ocean itself.

Given most early civilisations sprang up on fertile alluvial flood plains, noah-type flood myths are to be expected but they are based on no global evidence whatever. God people would be better served by highlighting the fact the earth is at the ideal distances from the sun so that most water in the hydrosphere is above freezing point but the temperature is not high enough so all the water on the planet evaporates. From the perspective of organic life, this arrangement is fortuitous.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Whatever half-baked theory they use to explain the presence of all that water, they fail to explain how a global inundation for such a period as described in the great-flood myths would allow both fresh- and salt-water fish to survive. Anyone who has ever kept even a small aquarium knows the requirements of temperature, pH, salinity, etc. to keep either type alive. Salt water kills most fresh-water fish, and vice-versa.

I did see an "explanation" for the re-population of the earth by all the animals of the ark in such narrow, specific regions (eg, marsupials in Australia, reindeer in Scandinavia)...the apologist explained that these animals had "evolved" differently since settling where we currently find them. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

No problem in science--from relativity to quantum physics, to cellular biology--has ever given me the headache I get from the simplest conversation with a theist....

~Brian

My head is neither in the clouds, nor in the sand. I hold it high and make good use of it to sense, wonder about, consider, treasure, and attempt to understand my reality.

Whatever half-baked theory they use to explain the presence of all that water, they fail to explain how a global inundation for such a period as described in the great-flood myths would allow both fresh- and salt-water fish to survive. Anyone who has ever kept even a small aquarium knows the requirements of temperature, pH, salinity, etc. to keep either type alive. Salt water kills most fresh-water fish, and vice-versa.

I did see an "explanation" for the re-population of the earth by all the animals of the ark in such narrow, specific regions (eg, marsupials in Australia, reindeer in Scandinavia)...the apologist explained that these animals had "evolved" differently since settling where we currently find them. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!

No problem in science--from relativity to quantum physics, to cellular biology--has ever given me the headache I get from the simplest conversation with a theist....

~Brian

I have kept freshwater tropicals and marines and the death rates of the latter were 100 per cent. Salt water reef fish, coming from such a stable environment, have no tolerance for variation in their water quality.

The silliest part about the flood story is the motive to flood the earth in the first place. It went like this. Angels saw that earth girls were hot, came down and shagged them, the earth girls gave birth to giants. These giants were full of mischief, the most obvious evil being that they had sex with strange flesh (animals andplants according to some commentators) and influenced the people to depravity. As a result of this unlikely behaviour, god repented his pathetic creation and only the slaughter of all life, followed by the delightful smell of a large number of BBQed lambs was sufficient to please him again.

It's hard to imagine the smell of burning flesh would please a non existent entity of the type theists now insist the lord has become. But I can imagine that if I was a herdsman on my way back into camp after a long day in the saddle in the year 1500BC, it would be my favourite smell, which I guess is the material point.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Hey guys I have been hearing that vertical plate tectonics and catstrophic plate tectonics are evidence for a global flood. I believe vertical plate tectonics is the idea that a comet crashed and broke a seal which allowed a lot of water to gush out... or something. And I think catastrophic plate tectonics is a theory that explains that all the water from the flood is still here today, just that the whole Earth was rearranged so that there is still land above it... or something.

I was wondering what the refutations are for these two theories? It would be much appreciated.

Also as a minor note, any refutations or comments about hydroplate theory and canopy (vapor) theory would also be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance,

OhMan.

1.) They're not falsifiable.

2.) They ignore the evidence that actually reveals age (This is only relevant for YEC though) and other evidence that provide better explanations for geological formations.

3.) The evidence is used to promote a particular biblical/Tanak/Koranic hermeneutic and are not necessary for one to be a Christian/Jew/Muslim. There's no reason to embrace such things otherwise.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”